The potential uses of a pair of smart glasses are easy to fixate on: simply glance to one side at the tiny screen and check your e-mail, make sure you’re walking in the right direction according to your maps app, see what the weather will be like later in the afternoon. But some realities about the glasses have yet to be addressed—for one, what we all might look like using these things.

We know generally what a human wearing these glasses (or at least the first generation of them) will look like thanks to Google and other emerging smart glasses companies. We know what the glasses can do. But we've neglected to consider how different we might look to people around us while we’re watching those little screens, seeing them do what they do.

During the week of CES, I visited the booth of Vuzix, a company that plans to release smart glasses that interface with your smartphone to let you view the display via a tiny screen clipped to your head. Eventually, the company hopes to run Android apps directly from the headset itself.

The design isn’t as sleek and minimal as that of Google Glass, which still isn’t due to reach customers’ hands for another year. But Vuzix plans to price its version at less than one third of the only price point Google has put forward ($1,500).

While at the booth, I asked a representative to put the M100 smart glasses on for me. I asked him to focus on me, like we were having a conversation.

Looking directly at me...

Then I asked him to focus on the screen inside the glasses. The result:

...Trying to bring the tiny smart glasses screen into focus.

After this initial minute, he went back to looking as if he were looking straight ahead, but there was a moment when he attempted to focus on the screen on one side of his face with both eyes. The look in the second picture above is due to “convergence,” where our eyes attempt to keep an object in focus by working together to maintain single binocular vision. A user probably wouldn’t always look like this while glancing over at the tiny screen, but at best it would take some practice to shift focus without apparently going cross-eyed.

When I tried out the headset, the screen was a bit difficult to see (for some reason, the demo units weren’t attached to a headband or any other structure for affixing it to my head, so I had to hold up the earpiece to my ear and pretend). The display seemed to float out in space several inches beyond where there actual glass was—appropriate, since it’s designed to look like a 4-inch screen held at 14 inches.

The screen is noticeably low-resolution (WQVGA) and the colors were not great. Besides gazing into the virtual abyss of the handset, I also couldn’t do much with the screen. As it is now, the headset has to interface with an Android handset and will display whatever is happening on the handset on the headset’s tiny screen. There are two navigation buttons and a power button embedded in the top of the earpiece, but to get any real navigation or selection done, I’d have to look down at the connected smartphone, which all but negates the value of having a screen set right in front of my eye.

Looking inside the itty bitty screen, you can see a piece of the display looking much further off in the distance than it really is.

Ultimately, a screen with which you can’t interact will be better suited to monitoring than management—for instance, keeping an e-mail app open to flick your eyes over and see if that message you’re waiting for has arrived, or, as we mentioned, mapping app directions. But the battery life will cut this short: currently, Vuzix’s smart glasses are pegged for 2 hours of a continuous "on" state from their batteries, or 8 hours with “typical” off-and-on use.

Smart glasses are still an interesting concept, but we have our doubts that they will ever fit into the lifestyle of mainstream consumers. Certainly, at this early stage, a short battery life and clunkier look won’t help these glasses. We have even more doubts about the way they look on a person. As we understand it, smart glasses are an item to be worn all the time, not unlike how Bluetooth headsets are never removed from the ears of the habitual businessperson.

The Vuzix smart glasses attached to a headband. The product will also have options for ear clips and headbands that go around the back of the neck.

But Bluetooth headsets worn in that capacity have presented a near-insurmountable social hurdle: it’s not always possible for bystanders or conversation partners to definitively determine who the wearer is talking to without explicitly asking. Smart glasses may present the same problem once we all learn to focus on them: are you talking to me or reading your Twitter feed? But if your conversation partner’s eyes try to converge on the screen, it’s going to make for an awkward moment during your chat when their eyes, ever so briefly, cross while trying to check the status of their e-mail or social networks. It’s the equivalent of glancing down at your smartphone in your lap, but so much more visually jarring.

We may be worrying about these issues too early: at around $500, these glasses will be hard to justify even for the most dogged of early adopters, so we’re hardly in for an unfocused-gaze-during-conversation pandemic. But it’s funny to think that we may be on the horizon of developing a new technological response twitch: the flick of the wrong eye to a tiny head-mounted display.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

Sure, they have issues. What early technology doesn't? Early cell phones had crappy battery life and cut out regularly (aside from being clunky). Early smart phones had single-point-touch displays and often required styluses. Early cars could break your wrist when you tried to start them.

I think it's more than a little early to be making predictions like "we have our doubts that they will ever fit into the lifestyle of mainstream consumers." Just like no consumer will ever need more than 640k of memory in a PC, right?

Sign me up. They certainly don't look any stupider than many fashion trends, and they will only get smaller and sleeker. I think the real issue is that you can't be ashamed at being a knowledgeable and competent technology user, which seems to be an issue with a lot of people for some reason.

Give me a v2 or v3 that looks like a stylish pair of sunglasses and I'll bite. Love the idea, but these do look a bit silly (which is reasonable to expect since it's a first generation product.) Hopefully it doesn't prevent the idea from being developed and refined.

I'm looking at these as the early, barely-better-than-a-TI83's-display Palm Pilots of yesteryear, knowing full well that the tech will evolve into something functional like today's smartphones. That's the point of industry: Develop an interesting proof of concept, get interest, refine, market, refine more, then someone else will take your idea and make it better.

Anyone else looking forward to the perpetual Google Vs Apple fight splashing over into your local mall's LensCrafters in the next decade?

If you already wear glasses maybe future versions will be able to integrate well into corrective eyewear, but I can't see any sort of standalone unit like what that guy was wearing catch on. People who wear Bluetooth earpieces already look bad enough.

The only people I've run across who even vaguely want these things are hardcore geeks of the sort you find on tech sites. (And even a substantial portion of the geeks find them mildly interesting, but nothing they'd want.) Outside of geek circles, I don't think anybody wants this technology. Not only is it nerdy-looking and intrusive, it's a technology looking for a problem to solve.

I don't want one of these (or any version of it I can see coming). I honestly believe it's going to have even less of an impact on society than the Segway did, even though it's getting the same sort of hype that the Segway did.

I think the real issue is that you can't be ashamed at being a knowledgeable and competent technology user, which seems to be an issue with a lot of people for some reason.

There are legitimate questions about what the constant availability of information on a device like this does to your competence. There are suggestions that smartphones and other existing devices are already impacting people's memory, attention spans, persistence etc. The temptation to use such a thing as a replacement for thinking and remembering will be rather ever-present. Just something to think about.

Smart glasses aren't the future- smart contacts are. If they can solve the focusing issues (an area of intense research right now), the tech will get a lot more viable. There's a long way to go in the display technology too, of course, but they've made some progress in that area too. If you want an idea of what such a future would be like, check out "Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge. It's a scary, strange world, but also ultimately familiar. Reading it, I felt like everything he came up with was a natural extension of the technologies and communication mediums we already have. There were lots of detrimental elements, like people constantly "SM-ing" while also pretending to talk to a real person, but there were positive things too, like real-time "presence projecting" to anywhere in the world and entire subcultures built around VR gaming and the creation of virtual landscape overlays in any public location. It was fascinating.

I'm looking at these as the early, barely-better-than-a-TI83's-display Palm Pilots of yesteryear, knowing full well that the tech will evolve into something functional like today's smartphones. That's the point of industry: Develop an interesting proof of concept, get interest, refine, market, refine more, then someone else will take your idea and make it better.

Anyone else looking forward to the perpetual Google Vs Apple fight splashing over into your local mall's LensCrafters in the next decade?

Considering the eyewear industry is basically a monopoly under Luxottica (Ray Ban, Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, and pretty much any other "designer" sunglasses, under license), Google needs to win over one company—and one company only—to get these pumped out into the market.

As for the functional implications, perhaps these would be good for hands-free navigation, etc., while driving? Someone would have to studies to prove that these wouldn't be a hazard for drivers to use on the road. All the other AR implications are probably dependent on getting these integrated into a pair of Ray Bans, or the like.

A user probably wouldn’t always look like this while glancing over at the tiny screen, but at best it would take some practice to shift focus without apparently going cross-eyed.

What exactly are you referring too by "cross-eyed"? The guy in the picture doesn't look cross-eyed. It just looks like both his eyes shifted over the his left. It's something that most of us do.

Xavin wrote:

Sign me up. I think the real issue is that you can't be ashamed at being a knowledgeable and competent technology user, which seems to be an issue with a lot of people for some reason.

The real issue is with the confusion that arises from seeing someone who is walking while looking ahead, but apparently not seeing what's in front of them. My university had a professor a decade ago who would walk around campus with exactly that sort of HUD along with a pack-back mounted computer and everyone would give him a wide berth because no one could tell if he was actually watching where he was going.

And I hope you don't bring up, 'people will get used to it' as a counter-point. After years of seeing people muttering into thin air, the effect is still confusing and disconcerting. Is that guy talking to me? Is he insane and should I run away from him? Then I see the idiotic headset.

As it is now, a single eye piece unit is kind of useless, it's super useless if there is no way to control it without using a separate device. If we had the technology, I would implement an augmented reality user interface where you use gestures, voice control, and interactions with the real world to control the device. So, let's say we want to be lazy and implement the standard Android UI, but in glasses form. You can look at a desk and have the UI appear on the desk, from your point of view the UI is actually part of the desk. We don't screw around with fake AR here, when your hand comes out it does not end up behind the UI some sweet AR functions run to ensure the UI always appears behind your hand.

The first glasses implementations are going to suck, they are all going to either just be Android really close to your eye and completely pointless since you have to look at an external device to control it, or it will be some hacked into the world Android UI that was thrown together at the last second.

Heavy rain has a cool implementation of AR glasses with an added glove that allows you to touch and feel virtual objects and showed some casual games that could run on it. It's not at all explored though because that would be cool and games can not be cool.

Caprica also showed an AR UI. When you get email you use an empty sheet of paper and the text appears on it.

In my opinion, a good glasses UI must blend into the world and not sit on top of it like a fat cat running over kittens to get to it's bowl.

I think the real issue is that you can't be ashamed at being a knowledgeable and competent technology user, which seems to be an issue with a lot of people for some reason.

There are legitimate questions about what the constant availability of information on a device like this does to your competence. There are suggestions that smartphones and other existing devices are already impacting people's memory, attention spans, persistence etc. The temptation to use such a thing as a replacement for thinking and remembering will be rather ever-present. Just something to think about.

Not to diminish your comment, which is valid, but by some (and I do emphasize 'some') standards we've already diminished as a people far beyond saving in terms of attention span and memory retention. The memory-based oral tradition of Mohammad's words come to mind.

I've said it before with the stories of Google creating glasses, and I'll keep saying it.

There is no way people en masse will use computer glasses.

Whether it's glasses like those above that make you look cross-eyed and stupid, or sunglasses, it just doesn't add up to a well functioning system.

Eyes serve too many other purposes of critical importance--focus when walking or driving, expression of emotions and connection with other people, etc. Putting a screen or rod (as those pictured) in front of them is just idiotic. Covering up your eyes all day with sunglasses is not a look that many people want to work with (Hey--you're like the Terminator!).

There may very well be other types of apparel that might effectively get technologized, but I think glasses is one of the least effective, unless you're flying a fighter jet or something.

Considering the eyewear industry is basically a monopoly under Luxottica (Ray Ban, Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, and pretty much any other "designer" sunglasses, under license), Google needs to win over one company—and one company only—to get these pumped out into the market.

Huh! I had never heard of Luxottica before and never knew of their market dominance. That (and the Wikipedia article on them) was very illuminating. Thanks.

I think the real issue is that you can't be ashamed at being a knowledgeable and competent technology user, which seems to be an issue with a lot of people for some reason.

There are legitimate questions about what the constant availability of information on a device like this does to your competence. There are suggestions that smartphones and other existing devices are already impacting people's memory, attention spans, persistence etc. The temptation to use such a thing as a replacement for thinking and remembering will be rather ever-present. Just something to think about.

I'm looking at these as the early, barely-better-than-a-TI83's-display Palm Pilots of yesteryear, knowing full well that the tech will evolve into something functional like today's smartphones. That's the point of industry: Develop an interesting proof of concept, get interest, refine, market, refine more, then someone else will take your idea and make it better.

Anyone else looking forward to the perpetual Google Vs Apple fight splashing over into your local mall's LensCrafters in the next decade?

Considering the eyewear industry is basically a monopoly under Luxottica (Ray Ban, Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, and pretty much any other "designer" sunglasses, under license), Google needs to win over one company—and one company only—to get these pumped out into the market.

As for the functional implications, perhaps these would be good for hands-free navigation, etc., while driving? Someone would have to studies to prove that these wouldn't be a hazard for drivers to use on the road. All the other AR implications are probably dependent on getting these integrated into a pair of Ray Bans, or the like.

Great point. Normally I would counter with the fact that Apple has magnitudes more revenue at their disposal than all of Luxottica's brands combined, and has an established dedicated sales floor room in nearly every key marketplace that generates more cash per square foot than any other retailer in the world, but the technology for this is so far away from being truly marketable (in tech years, at least) that the point I would raise could very well be moot. Apple may be riding oscillating waves, and who knows how high or low they will be a decade or more from now.

A user probably wouldn’t always look like this while glancing over at the tiny screen, but at best it would take some practice to shift focus without apparently going cross-eyed.

What exactly are you referring too by "cross-eyed"? The guy in the picture doesn't look cross-eyed. It just looks like both his eyes shifted over the his left. It's something that most of us do.

He does look cross-eyed. Yes, we know intellectually that both eyes are focused on something to one side, but one eye is covered. It makes him look cross-eyed.

He doesn't look cross-eyed at all to me (and apparently to grimlog as well). It just looks like he's looking off to one side... and that's it. He might look cross-eyed to you, but that doesn't mean he looks cross-eyed to everyone.

Someday we can all have full-time heads-up displays like Ahnold the Terminator.If the functionality is there, some may reject it because it looks dorky. To each their own, my values would label them fools, but whatever. They probably got laid more in high school.

But that's not really what I want in the short/medium term. What I want is a head-mounted replacement for my laptop screen. So I don't have to have its size, weight, fragility, power consumption, and lack of privacy when I'm traveling.

All the rest of a reasonable laptop, except keyboard, now fits in a smartphone form factor. The keyboard can roll or fold up for when iPhone touchscreen mode input is too tedious.

Get the resolution of this up to at least tablet level and there's a whole new model for mobile computing.Not yet continuously wearable, which is a different application. I just want a better delivery vehicle for portable computing than a laptop.

I'm a big geek. You know the guy walking on the sidewalk using his smartphone?

But I would not wear this. Dumb. I want to control how and where and how long I interact with technology. (Read: how often I use it to connect with other people, because that's mostly what it is). I don't want it to always be there literally in front of my eyes. I'd shove these glasses into my pocket more than they'd be in my eyes. A 1mm thin bendable smartphone - or whatever they call them in 10 years - fits in a pocket better and that's what I want.

Goggles-computer is cool in theory. About as cool as controlling your computer with voice or using hand gestures in the air. For 10 minutes, and then you want to stab yourself in the face when you realize that pressing $something$ with your fingers is always easier and more convenient.

I personally wouldn't mind something like Google's model. It's sleek and integrates with glasses nicely. As for the social element, same rules apply as smartphones - put it to sleep when not using it, and don't play with it when someone's taking to you.

I personally wouldn't mind something like Google's model. It's sleek and integrates with glasses nicely. As for the social element, same rules apply as smartphones - put it to sleep when not using it, and don't play with it when someone's taking to you.

I think the real issue is that you can't be ashamed at being a knowledgeable and competent technology user, which seems to be an issue with a lot of people for some reason.

There are legitimate questions about what the constant availability of information on a device like this does to your competence. There are suggestions that smartphones and other existing devices are already impacting people's memory, attention spans, persistence etc. The temptation to use such a thing as a replacement for thinking and remembering will be rather ever-present. Just something to think about.

Well, you gotta remember that the people that love this kind of thing are just waiting to be assimilated to the borg anyhow. I already want to throttle people who are driving while on the phone or texting. If I have to deal with people that are apparently staring off into the wild blue yonder while reading email when the traffic light turns green I may go mental.

I'm looking at these as the early, barely-better-than-a-TI83's-display Palm Pilots of yesteryear, knowing full well that the tech will evolve into something functional like today's smartphones. That's the point of industry: Develop an interesting proof of concept, get interest, refine, market, refine more, then someone else will take your idea and make it better.

Anyone else looking forward to the perpetual Google Vs Apple fight splashing over into your local mall's LensCrafters in the next decade?

Considering the eyewear industry is basically a monopoly under Luxottica (Ray Ban, Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, and pretty much any other "designer" sunglasses, under license), Google needs to win over one company—and one company only—to get these pumped out into the market.

As for the functional implications, perhaps these would be good for hands-free navigation, etc., while driving? Someone would have to studies to prove that these wouldn't be a hazard for drivers to use on the road. All the other AR implications are probably dependent on getting these integrated into a pair of Ray Bans, or the like.

Great point. Normally I would counter with the fact that Apple has magnitudes more revenue at their disposal than all of Luxottica's brands combined, and has an established dedicated sales floor room in nearly every key marketplace that generates more cash per square foot than any other retailer in the world, but the technology for this is so far away from being truly marketable (in tech years, at least) that the point I would raise could very well be moot. Apple may be riding oscillating waves, and who knows how high or low they will be a decade or more from now.

Luxottica's retail channel domination seems more analogous to the cell carriers—AT&T, Verzion, etc.—in the way they manipulate and control independent eyewear designers. Hence the affinity to Google and Android. I agree that if Apple were to embrace AR eyewear, they would be able to have a successful launch using Apple Stores alone, and that Sunglass Hut, etc. would be an afterthought.

Sure, they have issues. What early technology doesn't? Early cell phones had crappy battery life and cut out regularly (aside from being clunky). Early smart phones had single-point-touch displays and often required styluses. Early cars could break your wrist when you tried to start them.

You have a point, but keep in mind that all those early devices were rather fringe products that didn't really catch on until new iterations solved those problems. The general public didn't accept short battery life, crappy service, and giant bricks that were the first cell phones. The general public didn't accept rudimentary touch screens and stylus driven smart phones.

So my point is that I doubt that these early model smart glasses will catch on with the general public. Most people will take one look at them and scoff at how stupid they'd look with them on. However, my hope is that enough people (a subset of nerds, and people who think they look cool with a Bluetooth headset on their ear 24/7) will be willing to buy these things, so that the technology continues to improve to the point where someone makes a version that doesn't look like you have a book light mounted to your forehead.

Having not even encountered someone wearing these in public yet, I've already decided that they're more annoying than the people who walk around ALL DAY wearing Bluetooth headsets whether they're likely to be on the phone or not.